For example I wouldn’t be tempted to ‘restore’ the Halifax that is on display at Hendon; it is a far more interesting and evocative exhibit displayed as it is. To restore it would destroy or hide much of the original fabric of a genuine wartime aircraft lost on an actual operation. However I would also find it hard to criticise the restoration of the Halifax in Canada. If another Halifax were recovered to the United Kingdom in a condition that would make a full restoration possible, even if that involved a lot of new-build components, then I would probably think it was a good idea, depending on its historic ‘significance’.

Another thing that always occurs to me about ‘data plate’ Spitfire restorations is that because these are relatively common the supply of spare parts to support the ‘genuine’ Spitfires must be much easier and affordable. Also would there be calls to ground these ‘genuine’ flying Spitfires if they represented a larger proportion, or the whole proportion, of a smaller pool of flying Spitfires? Would they be too irreplaceable to ‘risk’ flying them?

Having said all that I still think the most moving exhibit in the Battle-of-Britain hall at Hendon is the incomplete Hurricane displayed in virtually ‘as found’ condition.

Fully agreed: however it’s interesting how times have changed: when the Halifax was recovered, my impression at that time was that most people (me included) wanted it restored to as near to ‘new’ condition as possible. Over the intervening years I’ve come to realise what a close call that was.

And I concur regarding the Hurricane vignette: I always take a few photos of it because I find it so much more interesting than a bright, clean version would be. I suspect some of that is my technical background coming out, but I also think it brings to mind what actually happened to that machine, its pilot, and many thousands more like it. As such it’s a far better exhibit than a different type of display would be.

Agreed: and there’s a big difference between the ‘Murphy’s Broom’ airframe (where there has been a continuous but recorded replacement of major items and a single, cohesive machine at the far end) and these novel ‘restorations’, where there is no clear connection between two entities.

Moreover, the process of creating something new but with an old identity results in the wilful destruction of something far more valuable.

Sadly I’m talking about value in terms of cultural and educational worth, whereas the opposite side of the same coin is measured in pounds, shillings and pence.

One day in the not-too-distant future, we’ll look back and wonder how on earth we allowed such wanton pillaging of our collective heritage.

But for X4593 it looks like we may at least see common sense prevail in the meantime.

They should exist side by side. Both sides have their merits.
IMHO
Cees

Sounds good for me!

Creaking Door: my apologies if the joke didn’t hit the mark – a witty response said in one’s head often sounds less impressive to the recipient(s).

I don’t per se have an issue with ‘data plate flyers’, but I do have a problem with two aspects of the phenomenon.

First of all, I don’t appreciate being told that ‘x’ Spitfire is “…the aircraft which so-and-so flew in the Battle of Britain”, when often there’s nothing in the particular machine which saw service at that time. I greatly admire the efforts and craftsmanship which go into such creations, and long may people continue to do it, but I do feel cheated some times when I know full well what the true provenance of something is.

Secondly, on a number of occasions, the ‘real’ aircraft on which such a recreation is based, has disappeared from the public eye, and I do feel that this is a great shame. I find these recoveries immensely interesting, and though it’s good to see a bright, spanking new aircraft on the ramp or in the air, I also feel it’s of far more value to display an artefact as-recovered (or as close to), since – for me at least – I find such things immensely educational, and much more readily explain the sacrifice which many brave men and women made, than the newly-created item.

Hope this puts a bit of depth behind my off-the-cuff reply: it was a genuine ‘sigh’ response, but also a hope that the right thing might be done of such a valuable object.

HP O/400 if rumours are to be believed.

Bob T.

Oh I say. That got my attention!

There isn’t a current project to get a Concorde airworthy. There is a great deal of nonsensical press speculation, based on who knows what.

But the facts are easy to prove: First there are no aircraft available (strict control by current owners), and even if there were, the DA support does not exist.

So a Shack it is.

And XH558

:eagerness:

At the risk of being accused a ‘whinger’, I do feel a genuine ambivalence toward the team which has kept XH558 in the air these past ten years.

On the one hand I have nothing but admiration for all involved, from those who cheerfully man the stall at airshows, through the maintenance personnel who have done incredible things, to the air crews who have without fail put on some deeply impressive shows. To have done this for ten years as a private organization is something that I find genuinely incredible. XH558 will undoubtedly come to represent the ultimate in terms of warbird operations. Unless someone one day gets a B-52 airborne in private hands, I doubt this feat will ever be surpassed.

However. There have at times been some – let’s say, strange – proclamations coming out of VTTS HQ. As one who donated money prior to her first flight, I recall the first occasion being that awkward period when we were being told to stay away from Brunty when it came close to her return to the skies. As someone who contributed to that first flight, I felt a tad insulted at the time.

Next there was the (in my opinion) daft decision to not place XH558 in the static at RIAT 2014, supposedly because the staff manning the stall would have to fend off hordes of angry showgoers who wouldn’t tolerate not seeing her fly!

Again, having continued to donate money to the aircraft in the intervening years I thought this a bit disrespectful and I still cannot quite believe the reasons given.

And now there is this ‘stay away or we’ll cancel’ threat, which would seem to continue this trend of unfortunate PR. Other events manage to control similar influxes of the public, so what is different here? Since it’s post-harvest there must be a lot of farmers around Doncaster who would dearly love to charge £1 a time to park cars on their stubble! Surely VTTS can afford a few phone calls and some road signs?

I can only hope that, should the XH558 management/PR/whatever team move their attentions to another aviation icon, that they learn by their mistakes.

Again, I deeply admire what’s been done, but a very bright period of historic aviation has been spoiled by the odd spot of daftness.